Pakistan Tells U.S. To Leave 'Drone' Attack Base

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

We all know it for the fact of thing...but lets be realistic USA has clearly refuted the demand from Pakistan government

Officially? No. All we have is the claims of 'anonymous officials'.

Officially, and legally, there really isn't much the US can do.

and now what else can Pakistan really do is to be seen...we all can say our opinion but i dont think America will be made to exit airbase unless their tagets are finished...Your government and army is too weak to raise more than voice against USA at the moment and seriously i dont mean any offences here...

My point is simply that the US cannot really resort to a military option to retain the base, if Pakistan takes any number of steps to make it impossible for the US to operate from there. This is a base on Pakistani territory, not a terrorist mastermind that the US wants to take out. The US will have no international support. The only thing the US can do is 'threaten aid', and they have 'threatened to cut off aid' over so many things, that the threat is rather pointless now. The cut off aid over the base, and they lose a lot more than just the base.

 

[-INDIAN-]

Officially? No. All we have is the claims of 'anonymous officials'.

Officially, and legally, there really isn't much the US can do.

My point is simply that the US cannot really resort to a military option to retain the base, if Pakistan takes any number of steps to make it impossible for the US to operate from there. This is a base on Pakistani territory, not a terrorist mastermind that the US wants to take out. The US will have no international support. The only thing the US can do is 'threaten aid', and they have 'threatened to cut off aid' over so many things, that the threat is rather pointless now. The cut off aid over the base, and they lose a lot more than just the base.

Point 1:why would they resort to military action if your government is not going to do anything beyond raising voices??
Point 2: my arguement is if Pakistan Government had any willingness to hear the People's opinion they would have taken these steps way back...did they??no they didnt and they will not do anything in near by future...
Point 3:International support will never be a concern for USA..i dont think UK,FRANCE will back off from any decision taken by USA...
Point 4:I believe aid is not going to play any further roles in decision making on both sides...
conclusion:I dont see your Government taking a tough stance against USA atleast in near by future...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Point 1:why would they resort to military action if your government is not going to do anything beyond raising voices??

Whether the GoP does anything or not is a different issue. My point is simply that if the GoP were to take a decision to evict the US, there are any number of ways they can do that without any significant repercussions.

Point 2: my arguement is if Pakistan Government had any willingness to hear the People's opinion they would have taken these steps way back...did they??no they didnt and they will not do anything in near by future...

See above, and I have talked about the issue you mention several times on various threads.

Point 3:International support will never be a concern for USA..i dont think UK,FRANCE will back off from any decision taken by USA...

I doubt the UK and France have any interest in starting a war over a 'Base in Baluchistan'. If they do, then the base is just an excuse for war, and war will come regardless of what happens at the base.

Point 4:I believe aid is not going to play any further roles in decision making on both sides...
conclusion:I dont see your Government taking a tough stance against USA atleast in near by future...

A lot of Pakistanis don't see this GoP taking tough decisions on any number of issues, but as I said, my point is simply that Pakistan has the ability to make the US evict the base without serious repercussions - whether the GoP takes that decision is another issue.

 

[Peregrine]

Look, first of all, we need to define the 'rules of the game'.

Does Pakistan have a 'democratically elected government? Yes. I care not whether you like it or not, or whether you want Shariah law, the point is that we have a democratically elected government.

Now that is cleared up, technically, who is responsible for foreign policy and 'evicting the US (or anyone else) from Pakistan? The GoP, not the Army, not the PAF.

By blaming the Army/Military, you are basically serving Zardari and his corrupt lackeys. They WANT to project the image that the 'Army is making us do this' despite the fact that Wikileaks and the firing of former FM Qureshi makes clear that they have no intention of taking on the Yanks. The decision to 'kick out the US, shoot down the drones, kick out all but essential US diplomatic officials' needs to be taken by parliament, officially, with both opposition and government in support of such a position.

The reason for parliament taking these decisions is that once Pakistan does assert itself against the US, expect all economic US aid to end, IMF assistance to end, and possible also expect US trade and other sanctions. Now, personally I believe that Pakistan has the resources to overcome this, if managed properly, but our politicians have no ability to take tough decisions, and therefore are highly unlikely to take decisions that will make the economy tank (for a while at least) and therefore lose their seats in elections.

Were the Army to take this decision unilaterally, all these politicians and the media would be ranting and blaming the 'dictator Army' for usurping civilian power and destroying the economy and the country.

Do you understand now why this 'change in policies towards the US' needs to come from Parliament, not the military? Given the potential consequences, parliament, as representative of all Pakistanis, needs to take a unified stance, explain what they plan to do, what the consequences are, what Pakistanis can expect will happen, and then act.

Don't make the Military a scapegoat here.

I am not concerned about evicting Americans from Pakistan & my concern is solely related to the presence of Americans on Shamsi airbase, So I'll stick to the later one only.
The Parliament didn't vote in, to hand over the base to the Americans, did it? Rather it was the air Chief who disclosed to the Senate that, the Shamsi airbase is under the control of UAE, not to mention that this too was a blatant lie & the airbase has been under the control of Americans & who knows for how long it has been an American territory on Pakistani soil, which is being explicitly used to kill our own people. It is beyond any doubt that the military of Pakistan was a part of these so-called counter-terrorism endeavors & continues to remain so. If parliament was not consulted prior to handing over of the base to the Americans, then why should it be dragged in now?
Military Leaders have been part of these appalling drone strikes though, indirectly but they have been involved to some degree & that is a fact. For the military apologists, anyone who raises an eyebrow at the army is either labeled as a propagandist or a traitor. But in reality, the real traitors are those who don't raise a voice against injustice & let their personal inclinations have the best of them.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I am not concerned about evicting Americans from Pakistan & my concern is solely related to the presence of Americans on Shamsi airbase, So I'll stick to the later one only.
The Parliament didn't vote in, to hand over the base to the Americans, did it? Rather it was the air Chief who disclosed to the Senate that, the Shamsi airbase is under the control of UAE, not to mention that this too was a blatant lie & the airbase has been under the control of Americans & who knows for how long it has been an American territory on Pakistani soil, which is being explicitly used to kill our own people. It is beyond any doubt that the military of Pakistan was a part of these so-called counter-terrorism endeavors & continues to remain so. If parliament was not consulted prior to handing over of the base to the Americans, then why should it be dragged in now?
Military Leaders have been part of these appalling drone strikes though, indirectly but they have been involved to some degree & that is a fact. For the military apologists, anyone who raises an eyebrow at the army is either labeled as a propagandist or a traitor. But in reality, the real traitors are those who don't raise a voice against injustice & let their personal inclinations have the best of them.

Parliament has to be 'dragged in now' because legally they are the only ones who can make that decision. The earlier decision was during Military Rule, and parliament could in fact argue that the decision to allow the US to use Shamsi was not approved by parliament, and therfore they are acting to reverse it. Given the amount of public support Parliament would have for such a policy, there should be nothing, not even the Army, that can stop them.

At some point Pakistanis have to decide what they want, and if it is elected government, then regardless of what happened in the past, it is Parliament that needs to be held responsible for TODAY's DECISIONS. What Musharraf did in the past cannot be an excuse for Parliament continuing the same policies. Elected representatives are running the government, they must be held responsible and made to pay for their decisions and/or indecision.

Calling for the Army to make these policy changes is simply calling for yet more Military interference in government, and that is precisely what we want to move away from.

 

[Pioneerfirst]

Drone attacks will not unless we act against terrorists.
These Haqqani group is none of Pakistan's use,they are just 3000-4000 people.wil it be better to get our people killed for others???
We shhen sould act against all groups of terorist and then fence our border

 

[Martian]

All the public statements calling for Americans to leave Pakistan, are just a part of an elaborate charade of pretending that they want to get rid of Americans.

US warning of consequences Military forced to reconsider steps
ISLAMABAD, June 30: By warning Pakistan about a whole range of consequences, the United States has succeeded in convincing the military leadership to reconsider its decision of drastically reducing American intelligence and military footprint in the country.

In an indication of lessening tensions, diplomatic sources say, the two countries are set to resume their discussions on counter-terrorism cooperation under the rubric of Strategic Dialogue this week. The meeting will be held in Islamabad.

Visas for close to 70 CIA operatives have already been issued, while several other cases are in the pipeline. Besides, the military command is seriously reconsidering its decision of sending back military trainers in reaction to the May 2 US raid on Abbottabad that killed Osama bin Laden.

Besides, some steps are also being taken to tamp down rhetoric. If something else doesn’t go wrong in coming days, official statements from Islamabad, Rawalpindi and Washington would not be having the same bite that had become their hallmark over the past several weeks.

“We have instituted a new system by streamlining the procedures for grant of visas for CIA and US military personnel, which places a lot of emphasis on documentation and disclosure of exact nature of activities,” a senior government official told Dawn on Thursday about the resumption of the process of issuing visas for the American spy agency.

The change of heart in Islamabad comes after the US had completed withdrawal of intelligence and military personnel on Pakistan military command’s request.

The official said: “We could not have afforded a complete breakdown in ties.” The disclosure about a rethink coincided with the announcement of the Obama administration’s new counter-terrorism strategy that underscores the need for remaining engaged with Pakistan terming its cooperation as ‘essential’ in continued counter-terrorism operations.

The relations that had been deteriorating since the start of the year because of the CIA operative Raymond Davis episode worsened with subsequent drone attacks and touched the lowest ebb with the Abbottabad raid. But reduction in the numbers of military and intelligence personnel turned the troubled relationship toxic.

The Pakistani authorities had withheld ‘no-objection certification’ for 229 US visa requests at the peak of the crisis in ties, documents seen by Dawn show. These included visa extension cases, visas for incoming replacements and short-term assignments and one exit visa.

Publicly there was a flurry of visits by senior US functionaries from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Chairman US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, CIA Chief Leon Panetta, Chairman Senate Foreign Relations Committee John Kerry to Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Thomas Nides and Deputy Special AfPak Envoy Frank Ruggiero for defusing the tension.

But, significantly and something that isn’t public yet, these visits were followed by Washington’s behind-the-scenes strongarm tactics.

Excerpts of one such letter from the US Office of Defence Representative in Pakistan (ODRP), which represents the Pentagon in the country, shared with Dawn detail the steps the Pentagon could take if the decision of cutting the footprint was not reversed.

The letter gave a precise timeline for various consequences Pakistan could face, including stopping the overhauling of MI-17 helicopter fleet, halting of supply of equipment like night-vision goggles and spares for Cobra helicopters, substantial delays in disbursements of Coalition Support Fund and ceasing sharing of intelligence information – just to name a few.

The position taken by the ODRP was that the unavailability of human resources would prevent continuation of all the programmes supporting Pakistan military.

A Pakistani officer, commenting on the letter, admitted that the US used pressure tactics to get its men back in Pakistan, but at the same time said the other option was that of being deprived of equipment and benefits.

“We need their technical support for which we depend on their expertise,” he added.

US warning of consequences Military forced to reconsider steps

 

[Peregrine]

Dear Martian, I read the article you provided, but i couldn't grasp the purpose of posting it as a reply to a fraction of my post. A penny for your thoughts, Martian?

 

[humanfirst]

Look, first of all, we need to define the 'rules of the game'.

Does Pakistan have a 'democratically elected government? Yes. I care not whether you like it or not, or whether you want Shariah law, the point is that we have a democratically elected government.

Now that is cleared up, technically, who is responsible for foreign policy and 'evicting the US (or anyone else) from Pakistan? The GoP, not the Army, not the PAF.

Can army be blamed for allowing drone strikes during their tenure?Can army be blamed for handing over shamsi airbase to Americans?

 

[Oldman1]

I think the broader point is that the airbase cannot survive as an Island, independent of supplies and energy imports.

And if the US really gets obstinate, as someone pointed out, Pakistan can simply remove all Pakistani personnel from the base and surrounding area, limit supplies to the base, and leave it to the 'dogs' so to speak. Baluchistan is vast and remote, and the Taliban have already been able to mount attacks on NATO transports. Now they'll have an entire base to aim at.

Remember the Berlin Airlift? This is not something new to the U.S. military which has the capacity, will, and resources to resupply a base in the middle of nowhere. Same thing in any previous wars. WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam, Gulf War 1, etc.

 

[Peregrine]

Remember the Berlin Airlift? This is not something new to the U.S. military which has the capacity, will, and resources to resupply a base in the middle of nowhere. Same thing in any previous wars. WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam, Gulf War 1, etc.

Don't sweat it! As long as people like Kiyani are here, this is not likely to happen. On a serious note, aren't we overestimating ourselves ? Or is it just the inflated American ego talking? Non of the American adversaries had nukes in all the previous wars which America fought. Only fools will rest on their laurels and down play the Nuclear Deterrence. Pakistan might not be able to nuke USA, But we certainly can make things very thorny for USA in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let alone the Nuclear Proliferation in Middle East is a cinch for Pakistan. So the best option for Americans is to keep on pleasing the corrupt elements in our so-called system of Governance & all their wishes will be granted.

 

[Martian]

Dear Martian, I read the article you provided, but i couldn't grasp the purpose of posting it as a reply to a fraction of my post. A penny for your thoughts, Martian?

Main to kambal chhorta hoon laiken kambal mujhey nahin chhorta.

It was PA fault to buddy with US (since 1950s) and specially since 2001. Musharraf gave too much free hand to US. Matter of fact is Pakistans' sovereignty has been compromised.

 

[Icarus]

A. NASR carries conventional warheads as well, No one talked about nuking.

Well then we have much better options if that is the case.

B. When you say ''Own People'' are you implying that the Shamsi Base has Pakistani's as well? If Yes then they are also responsible for the deaths of Pakistani's killed by drone strikes & if No, then your point about ''Own People'' is futile.

It is based on our land. Nuking the place(which I had thought was your intention) would not only contaminate the area but the resulting radioactive dust will affect the surrounding population. And although you might not think so, drone strikes kill many more Terrorists than they do civilians, the Hell Fires land within a metre of the beacon. And the drones coming to FATA are launched from Bagram, It is the drones sent to Kandahar and sorrounding areas that are launched from Shamsi.

C. Kiyani is the only person at the behest of whom all this is happening, you might have come to know him from office but i know him since he was a Lt.col, So lets not get into a debate about ''who knows him more''? this is off-topic and i don't want to get into this bickering.

It is Kiyani's decisions in office which have the most effect on this country. But do tell me what makes you think he is "gutless" ?

 

[Icarus]

Bingo! but you forgot one word. Allow me...........''Selective release of specious information''------> To lead the public astray & ISPR is just a perfect tool for that.

You don't know how gullible this nation is, to put it as said by Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men", "You can't handle the truth".

 

[Icarus]

They didnt get these permission in OBL raid right???It wont be difficult for them to by-pass Radars due to hilly terrain in that region...their Superior techonological edge will help them indeed to all these...

Those were stealth helis buddy, capable of carrying a very small payload. The day they make a stealth chinook will be the day I am truly worried.